NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/skiing/8982

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 3.4 KB | 73 lines

Newsgroups: rec.skiing
Path: sparky!uunet!s5!is1.is.morgan.com!is.morgan.com!sergei
From: [e-mail] (Sergei Poliakoff)
Subject: Re: Question to more advanced skiers (bumps)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: nyis113
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:48:38 GMT
Lines: 60

|> I disagree that any slope can be skied as easily at any speed.  All
|> other things being equal, you will go faster on steeper slopes.  The

That is not true at all.

|> effort that it takes to keep one's speed below terminal velocity is
|> what I call "fighting the mountain."  Anything that opposes a
|> straight, fall-line descent requires fighting the mountain a little.
|> The issue thus boils down to one of degrees.  We all fight the
|> mountain, it is just a question of how much, and how efficiently we
|> fight the mountain.

What is the point here ? What is the adequate  amount of fighting the
mountain ? Where is the demarcation line separating efficiently
fighting expert from innefeciently fighting beginner ?  How do you
measure this efficiency ?

|> When outclassed by a ski run, some people try to keep their speed down
|> by letting their skis scrape sideways against the snow, instead of
|> cleanly carving their turns.  While this does slow them down, the
|> scraping action is not usually considered good turning technique.

Well, lets not get too uptight here. After all we are talking about
some way of descending a slope on two sticks strapped to the shoes,
and why one particular method is preferrable to another is not quite
clear. If some authoritative organization  decided that certain way is
THE way, once and forever, that would be half-acceptable. But they change
their minds every so often ...

|> Others will traverse widely, going from one edge of the run to the
|> other.  This is a better alternative to scraping down the hill
|> sideways, but not much better.  Because of the long, straight part of
|> the traverse, the finish of one turn is not linked to the start of the
|> next turn.

Ditto. Who mandated that turns should be linked, and why ?

|> Technical nitpicking aside, my point is this: If you want to learn to
|> ski safely, stay on slopes that are near your ability, and try to ski
|> them with grace, and minimal effort.  As your skill increases, you can
|> ski faster on steeper slopes without difficulty.  Controlling your
|> speed never becomes an issue.

Controlling the speed is really one and only issue in free style skiing,
because the alternative is to shuss down, and nobody seems to be doing
it. (in racing, it also involves skiing around some arbitrary arrangement of
objects).  For some mysterious reason we have decided that the proper
way to control speed  is to carve the turns on long skis, although
I can easily prove that this is not necessarily true, since I can snowplow
and scrape  down ANY slope, no matter how steep and mogully (I've tested
the technique on  few occasions in Verbier and Aspen , and let me assure
you - it works just fine).

Some may argue that grace is also at stakes in free style, and it was in fact
mentioned in the original posting  : well, notion of what is graceful and
what is not comes and goes. Skiing style of the 60's champs is barely
graceful by todays standards.


Sergei